VIVEK PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein order dtd. 22/7/2017 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,51,131.00 in order to Electricity/2008-09.

(2.) Mr. P. S. A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits by referring to the order-sheet of the aforesaid certificate case that in terms of notice issued under sec. 7 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, he has appeared before the certificate officer and file objection as stipulated under Sec. 9 of the aforesaid Act. Although thereafter, regular appearance was not there and after substantial delay, the orders have been passed for issuance of warrant on 19/6/2018 for execution the certificate dtd. 22/7/2017 and as such it has been argued that even accepting that the regular appearance was not there but objection under Sec. 9 of the aforesaid Act was there. Therefore, the certificate officer ought to have adjudicated upon on the basis of the objection made by the petitioner under Sec. 9 but without doing so the certificate of the same amount has been issued on 22/7/2017 and after considerable delay, the warrant has been directed to be issued for its execution. In support thereof, submission has been made that the certificate officer may be directed to consider the aforesaid objection.

(3.) Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the JUVNL submits that it is not in dispute that if an objection under Sec. 9 is filed before the certificate officer the same is to be adjudicated upon but it has not been adjudicated, therefore, an order under Sec. 10 of the Act is required to be passed before issuance of the certificate for recovery of the amount pertaining to public demand.